Black Nationalism

[Mortimer]

What do you think? Are they anti-white?

Malcolm X explains the difference between separation and segregation.
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. 23 January 1963.
(Transcribed text from audio excerpt)

The black man that you're not familiar with is the one that we would like to point out now. He is a new type. He is the type that seldom the white man ever comes into contact with. And when you do come into contact with him you're shocked because you didn't know that this type of black man existed. And immediately you think, "Well here's one of those black supremacists or racists or extremists who believe in violence and all that other kind of..." Well, that's what they call it.

This new type of black man, he doesn't want integration; he wants separation. Not segregation, separation. To him, segregation, as we're taught by the Honorable Elijah Muhammad, means that which is forced upon inferiors by superiors. A segregated community is a Negro community. But the white community, though it's all white, is never called a segregated community. It's a separate community. In the white community, the white man controls the economy, his own economy, his own politics, his own everything. That's his community. But at the same time while the Negro lives in a separate community, it's a segregated community. Which means it's regulated from the outside by outsiders. The white man has all of the businesses in the Negro community. He runs the politics of the Negro community. He controls all the civic organizations in the Negro community. This is a segregated community.

We don't go for segregation. We go for separation. Separation is when you have your own. You control your own economy; you control your own politics; you control your own society; you control your own everything. You have yours and you control yours; we have ours and we control ours.

They don't call Chinatown in New York City or on the West Coast a segregated community, yet it's all Chinese. But the Chinese control it. Chinese voluntarily live there, they control it. They run it. They have their own schools. They control their own politics, control their own industry. And they don't feel like they're being made inferior because they have to live to themselves. They choose to live to themselves. They live there voluntarily. And they are doing for themselves in their community the same thing you do for yourself in your community. This makes them equal because they have what you have. But if they didn't have what you have, then they'd be controlled from your side; even though they would be on their side, they'd be controlled from your side by you.

So when we who follow the Honorable Elijah Muhammad say that we're for separation, it should be emphasized we're not for segregation; we're for separation. We want the same for ourselves as you have for yourselves. And when we get it, then it's possible to think more intelligently and to think in terms that are along peaceful lines. But a man who doesn't have what is his, he can never think always in terms that are along peaceful lines.

[Dick]

Anti-white male. No real "nationalist" is specifically "anti" when it comes to vag.

[OdisseusOfiucus]

cowards.

[Mortimer]

Bump

[Blondie]

This text is not anti white, not racist in my opinion.

[Mortimer]

I dont neccessarily agree with the seperation thing as in that races shouldnt mix at all but to me it doesnt sound anti-white really but more anti-imperialist, they want to decolonise and to take their fate into their own hands. Self-determination, they want only what whites have.

[Tooting Carmen]

While I can understand it and see the history behind it, generally I dislike such identitarianism of any kind. Instead, MLK's approach, which was about integration and unity, was much more positive and forward-thinking.

[Tooting Carmen]

What's more, notwithstanding the wounds of history from slavery and segregation in the New World in particular, and contrary to some of the more hysterical posters in this forum, on the whole I think that Blacks (even from Africa itself, let alone the New World) are rather more compatible with Whites in the long term than are most MENAs, South Asians and even many East Asians.

[Mortimer]

While I can understand it and see the history behind it, generally I dislike such identitarianism of any kind. Instead, MLK's approach, which was about integration and unity, was much more positive and forward-thinking.

It is humanistic approach and I like it Im for unity and peace but not sure if integration can trully fully work. Because blacks cant turn white or be like whites and whites cannot turn black or be like blacks. They will always be very different and it looks like as if often such differences bring instability and problems. Anyways to me it sounds like a liberation politics or philosophy, and only what they want is equality. Mixing can happen in moderate amounts though. If you mix everything together it will probably end in problems.

[Tauromachos]

Depends ,
Martin Luther King wasn't Anti White"i think" but he just wanted that Blacks get equal rights with whites and can
be equal valued member of American Society

In fact i believe he was more for peace,social justice and reconcilement between Black and White people in America.

Malcom X was more hardliner than him..